Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic questions/Archive 1

Welding and the definition of "gaps"
I'm thinking about a topic I did a bunch of work on&mdash;welding&mdash;and am wondering whether or not it could be a featured topic. Currently, Welding is a featured article, as is gas metal arc welding, gas tungsten arc welding, and shielded metal arc welding. These three procedures are the most basic and well-known arc welding methods. The question is: what must be done to get a featured topic out of this?
 * 1) Nothing&mdash;nominate now and probably pass those four articles as a "featured topic", with welding as the lead article.
 * 2) Raise arc welding to featured status, and nominate that as the lead article, with the other three in support.
 * 3) Do (2), and in addition raise articles like submerged arc welding, flux-cored arc welding and plasma arc welding to at least good article status.
 * 4) Do (2) and (3), and in addition raise articles like welding helmet and shielding gas to at least good article status.

What do you think? Feel free to suggest combinations I didn't think of. --Spangineerws (háblame)  04:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I think you've pretty much got the idea already! according to the first line of the "metalworking" template at the bottom of Welding, the important articles are: Arc welding, Shielded metal (MMA), Gas metal (MIG), Flux-cored, Submerged, Gas tungsten (TIG) and Plasma.
 * As you said three of these are already FAs, and if you got Arc welding to GA and ironed out any major problems in the "submerged", "flux cored" and "plasma" then that would probably be the most logical set for a FT entitled "Arc Welding".
 * That said, if the three different types that you mentioned (which are FAs) are indeed the main welding methods, then you could probably get a FT with Welding, Arc welding and those three - so long as Arc Welding is not too shabby. Other relevant articles can be added in later as they get to a good enough standard - such as Oxyfuel. Witty lama 05:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much it. The linking templates on bottoms of pages are good indicators of which articles should be in a topic.  For really broad topics, the articles linked from each of the section headings can go together to be a topic.  In your case, the template on all the pages gives a pretty clear indication of all the articles connected to the topic.  "Arc Welding" looks like its pretty close to being able to be nominated.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was the one who created the template in the first place, so to me it doesn't mean much; it just contains the articles I felt were most relevant. I suppose that since it's gone so long without being edited significantly suggests that it's acceptable for the topic, however, I don't think there are all that many major contributors interested in welding. --Spangineerws  (háblame)  03:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say number 3, like the people above me. The template thing isn't a hard and fast rule, though- you can decide for yourself what the most important articles are, without relying on the template.  If you exclude some that are in the template, though, you'd better be able to back it up with a good reason if anyone calls you on it.  --PresN 18:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Dinosaur featured topic?
I'm a newbie to FTC, so I figured I'd ask here. I was considering submitting a Dinosaur featured topic, because Dinosaur is a Featured article, and Wikipedia has a fair number of dinosaur-related articles which are GA or FA:


 * Dinosaur
 * List of dinosaurs
 * Psittacosaurus
 * Albertosaurus
 * Velociraptor
 * Tyrannosaurus
 * Stegosaurus
 * Diplodocus
 * Triceratops
 * Scelidosaurus
 * Iguanodon
 * Compsognathus
 * Archaeopteryx
 * Heterodontosauridae
 * Thescelosaurus
 * Amphicoelias
 * Ankylosaurus

These articles seem to meet Featured topic criteria 1, 2, 3, and 6. However, 4 requires "All articles in the series should be linked together, preferably using a template." and 5 states "There should be no obvious gap (missing or stub article) in the topic." Wikipedia has over 1,000 dinosaur articles, many of which can never become Featured Articles because there are so few published works on various poorly-known genera (one obvious example is "Unicerosaurus", but there are dozens of others). Would creating a Featured topic like this leave obvious gaps? How "obvious" is it to the average reader that there are hundreds of dinosaurs missing from the list? Does this count as a "gap"? Would it really be required for all 1,100 dinosaur genera to reach GA status to submit them to FTC? And would making this topic truly require a linking template? I thought self-references (like "Featured Dinosaur Articles" would be) was officially discouraged? Comments welcome. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, trying to do a dinosaurs topic would be like trying to do a fantasy novels topic. There are simply too many for it to be feasible, and while it might be possible to do a topic of the most "well-known" or "important" ones, that's completely subjective.  What might be better would be to go with Australian dinosaurs or feathered dinosaurs.  On another note, does anyone know if categories like Category:Featured dinosaurs are supposed to exist?  ShadowHalo 04:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the swift reply, ShadowHalo. I think your "fantasy novels" comparison might well be apt. Unfortunately, every continent is home to multiple poorly-known dinosaur genera: fossils of Australian dinosaurs are exceedingly rare (only a handful are known from even one relatively complete skeleton), but the other six continents are full of dubious critters, too. Articles on these dinosaurs are unlikely to ever reach FA status (because the FAC require an article to be comprehensive, while many named genera are based solely on teeth or bits of bone). Antarctica has only two named genera (FTC requires three articles) and the other continents have dozens or even a hundred nomina dubia. Feathered dinosaurs might be more appropriate, because (from a Wikipedia standpoint) we've included all the fossils known to have preserved feathers, but (from an outside viewpoint) the list of feathered dinosaurs will never be comprehensive, and some would include genera like Longisquama (had strange feather-like plumes) and Protoavis (some claim it has quill indentations on the fossils), while others would strongly object: it's contentious. I had considered various dinosaur families, but, again, every dinosaur family has plenty of dubious material assigned to it, and there would be "gaps". Maybe FTC just won't work for Dinosauria. If you (or anyone else) has further suggestions or ideas, please don't hesitate to make them. Firsfron of Ronchester  05:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You could also try a smaller family of dinosaurs like "ceratopsid dinosaurs" as a topic. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the suggestion, Arctic Gnome. There are 57 articles in the Ceratopsian category, two of which have reached FA status. Do you think that "gaps" like poorly-known ceratopsian genera like Polyonax would be a barrier to FTC? Firsfron of Ronchester  06:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The requirements do allow for a few articles to not be GA when there is not enough information about the subject to make a GA article, just make sure that what information you have is referenced and well-written. Secondly, although there is no maximum size for an FT, 57 articles is a bit big.  Aim for whatever level of taxonomy is going to have between 5-25 members articles in most cases.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the advice, Arctic Gnome. I'll see what can be done. Firsfron of Ronchester  22:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Another way to create a dinosaur FT would be to bring the articles about the major taxonomic groupings up to snuff.--Pharos 03:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that is something along the lines of what Arctic Gnome was suggesting. Unfortunately, there are only two FA/GA articles on taxa "higher up" than genus-level: Dinosaur itself, and Heterodontosauridae, which isn't exactly a major taxonomic grouping, and is only a GA anyway. Thanks. :) Firsfron of Ronchester  03:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The major articles to me would be Dinosaur, List of dinosaurs and the orders and sub-orders. The latter are currently unassesed. Tom pw (talk) (review) 13:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't assess them. There are only 5 or 6 of us adding material and deleting nonsense. There isn't time to also assess a thousand articles. Firsfron of Ronchester

Simpsons Featured Topic
I would like some clarification on the Featured Topic criteria. The topic criteria pretty clearly says that there now must be at least a 1/3 ratio of featured articles to the total article count, or 33% of them should be featured. The Simpsons article has 26 articles, so it should have at least 8 Featured articles, so 4 more than they have now. But some on the Wikiproject Simpsons page say that they have been given reassurance that 4 was enough. I just want to know what the deal is, as both of these things cannot both be true. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Criterion #3 is not set in stone, and in any case I don't see where it says 1/3 must be featured (if that has be added, there was no consensus to do so). The required number of featured articles increases slower than the size of the topic in which they are.  For a small topic of only three articles, two of them (2/3) should be featured; but for a topic of nine articles, three of them (1/3) should be featured.  For very large topics, having five or six featured articles is still fairly impressive.  The Simpsons topic is pushing the lower end of acceptability, but I think having as many FAs and GAs as it does is impressive enough that I will not nominate for removal.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok I understand now, I had thought it was 1 FA for 3 articles, then 3 for 9, etc, not 2 FA's for 3....alright, thanks a lot. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Multiple lead articles
Just curious seeing that this former featured topic had two main articles, if two main articles are appropriate in a case where one is not, could they still fulfill the criteria? The specific example I'm pointing to is a topic composing Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow (at WP:GAN, first main article), Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow (FA, second main article), Characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series (GA), and Soma Cruz (at WP:GAN). The second game is a direct sequel of the first, and thus each takes place within the same storyline. Although each is part of the larger Castlevania series, they compose a unified topic. Or should Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow alone be the main topic, as it was the one that Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow was based on? Clarification would be welcome. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 19:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Having only one lead article would be best given the current criteria. I would recommend using the original game as the lead article, unless one of the sequels is much better known than the original, in which case you might want to use it.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The original would be better. The sequel doesn't overshadow the original game in the manner you're implying, so I believe it will be fine. In any case, would just one article at featured status be appropriate for this topic (1 FA with 3 GAs), or is two featured articles necessary? Thanks, Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 06:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * According to the criteria all topics need two FAs or FLs. Zginder(talk) (Contrib) 18:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness vs moving targets
I am looking at a possible FT series based on the Guitar Hero (series) video games - they are not yet meeting the requirements, but the question I have is more towards how an FT with a moving target is dealt with.

Right now, taking only the released games, there would be 9 total articles: the series, each game (4), and each song list (4). However, there are two games that are shortly due around the corner (next few months) and it's rather obvious the series has legs for several more titles. Since it is known that there are more games due to be out soon, does this disqualify the series from being an FT? Or if we set a point in time (up through the start of 2008, for example), and then, as I've seen others, suggest the addition of further GA/FA/FL articles to the topic once they are ready? I will note there is at least one article I don't think we'll ever get to GA, but this can at least met the 3.c peer review criteria and wouldn't affect the FA/FL ratio. --M ASEM 23:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The new titles do not need to be in the topic if they are not released. Once they are released you will have at least three months, more if you are close to meeting requirements, to add the new articles or it can be demoted. Zginder(talk) (Contrib) 00:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Smash Bros. Suggestions
Several people have pointed out that this should be nominated as soon as Brawl completes its FAC. However, I am concerned with the current quality of Super Smash Bros. Melee,  Super Smash Bros., and  Super Smash Bros. (series). Are they of sufficient quality (criteria 3)? This is just a note - by no means am I attempting to nominate this topic before the last "recommendation" has been completed. --haha169 (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just noticed that one of the above GA games has recently delisted. I'll bring this up again at a later time. However, comments are still appreciated.--haha169 (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Criterion 3c
Can someone tell me how 3c has been viewed in recent WP:FTCs. I am trying to get an understanding of the prospects for WP:CHIFTD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The only items that have been able to use it so far are 1) lists about new topics that only so far have a few items, such as List of Nunavut general elections, of which there have only been two; and 2) media that has not yet been fully aired, such as Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 7). In both of these cases it is expected that when the subject has enough information to become FL or GA it must become so reasonably quickly.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If I were you, I'd nominate Chase Promenade for GA, and if it gets rejected for not being big enough, like you think it might, get it audited instead. I don't think anyone here can possibly argue if you take that route - rst20xx (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"Cherry picking"?
I am interested in making Judy Garland a featured topic. Judy Garland is FA and the obvious lead, and I have nominated List of Judy Garland awards and honors for FL. The Judy Garland Show is GA as is Every Sunday so there are enough articles that satisfy the criteria. My question is whether making a group that includes one of her films when she made around 40 constitutes cherry picking. Also whether the number of other related articles in Category:Judy Garland that aren't GA or higher would make the above grouping cherry picking. Otto4711 (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Including one TV show without including all the others would be cherry picking. Ditto films. Unless you can find a clearly defined gap in notability between the ones you are proposing to include and the ones you are excluding. For example, in the Solar System FT's last addition, they were able to add 6 moons by showing there is a large gap in size between the ones they were proposing to add and all the other moons in the Solar System. I'm certain you won't be able to find this gap for that one film. You might be able to argue for the inclusion of The Judy Garland Show as Garland's only regular series, a gap I would probably accept, but this may get opposed by others as not being a good enough gap, either from the other TV shows or from her movie output.
 * Now, to get to your second question, whether this constitutes a round enough topic. Again, I'm sorry to say no. I would say that in any topic you'd also have to include all other sub-articles of Judy Garland, i.e. the lists List of Judy Garland performances, Judy Garland discography and possibly List of Judy Garland biographies, and the articles Judy Garland as gay icon and Judy Garland ancestry.
 * If you get all those up to scratch, then after that, the TV stuff, film stuff, music stuff and related people would be different directions for possible future expansion of the topic. You wouldn't have any requirement to do any of them or do them at the same time if you decide to do any of them. But if you went for any of them, you'd have to do it fully.
 * If you don't want to work on the sub-articles, you could instead make a "Television Appearances of Judy Garland" FT which would have to include all the TV work instead (well, all the TV work notable enough to get its own article). List of Judy Garland performances would become the main article and Judy Garland might not be included at all.
 * But either way, in my opinion, you have a lot of work to do! Sorry! rst20xx (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured Topic question
Could I propose Smallville (season 1) for featured topic status? That article is FA, as is Pilot (Smallville), and Tempest (Smallville) is GA-status. That takes care of the 3 article minimum criteria, but I was concerned that since the two episode articles are the first and last episode of the season if it would be denied because of the "gap" between the articles. I mean, technically, there are no articles for the other episodes so it isn't like these two were "cherry" picked. Just wanted to know before I wasted my time setting it all up.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  06:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If the episodes don't have articles it is definitely not cherry picking. They are included in the main Smallville (season 1) article. Personally I would go ahead. Kariteh (talk) 08:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It might work, but I bet some users will vote against it on the grounds of having a gap. There are some cases where this kind of gap is okay, such as in the FTs about albums, where not every song needs its own article.  However, since the FTs for The Simpsons seasons have articles for every episode, you might have to prove why the individual episodes of Smallville are not notable enough for articles.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 10:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks for the responses. I think Smallville (season 1) speaks to why there are not articles on the other episodes. The Simpsons season pages are not "articles", they are lists. Smallvilles season pages ARE articles. All of the episode information is on those pages because of the lack of third-party coverage of the episodes. Thanks again.   BIGNOLE '    (Contact me)  12:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds to me that that should do it for an FT. Gary King ( talk ) 21:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

? Somerset geography &/or history
Having only recently become aware of "Featured Topics" I'm considering putting something up around Somerset geography & history but I'm not quite sure how to focus it or what to include: Relevant areas, articles & lists include There are a few others listed on WikiProject Somerset such as Chew Stoke,  Glastonbury Festival,  Chew Magna,  Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal,  Kennet and Avon Canal - but these are probably less directly relevant.
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|25px]] Somerset would obviously be the lead article. This is currently a GA but up at FAC
 * [[Image:Cscr-featured.svg|25px]] Chew Valley
 * [[Image:Cscr-featured.svg|25px]] Chew Valley Lake
 * [[Image:Cscr-featured.svg|25px]] List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Somerset
 * [[Image:Cscr-featured.svg|25px]] Mendip Hills
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|25px]] Avon Gorge
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|25px]] Cheddar Gorge and Caves
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|25px]] Dunstan
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|25px]] Exmoor currently at FAC - but partly in Devon
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|25px]] History of Somerset
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|25px]] Somerset Levels

Bath, Somerset, Grand Western Canal and South West Coast Path are currently GA candidates.

What would you suggest I include?&mdash; Rod talk 18:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're going to create a "Geography of Somerset" topic, you should include everything in Category:Geography of Somerset, which seems too big for a topic to me. Category:History of Somerset is also rather large. You'll need to pick something more narrowly defined. You could probably make a topic of Somerset, History of Somerset, Geology of Somerset, Economy of Somerset, etc. of all articles summarized in the main article.  Pagra shtak  19:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A topic would have to be free of gaps, but also should not overextend its reach. You could create one overall category with topics like "history of" and "geography of" as the user above sugested.  Alternitively, you could create some more focused topics, like "rivers of Sumerset".  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Noble gases
Noble gas is an article of limited broadness and quality. But the 7 articles about the actual elements in this group are of good quality (3 are FAs, 3 are GAs and one is A-class). Would also the main article have to be GA-ish for the Noble gases to become a featured topic? Nergaal (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * B-class: Noble gas
 * [[Image:Cscr-featured.svg|25px]] Helium
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|25px]] Neon
 * [[Image:Cscr-featured.svg|25px]] Argon
 * A-class Krypton
 * [[Image:Cscr-featured.svg|25px]] Xenon
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|25px]] Radon
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|25px]] Ununoctium


 * I would say that the Noble gas article would need to be GA at least for this to qualify. Also, Krypton is listed as a GA on its talk page. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 09:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, Noble gas has enough content that it could feasibly reach GA, and therefore must to be in an FT. --PresN (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Update
 * B-class: Noble gas
 * [[Image:Cscr-featured.svg|25px]] Helium
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|25px]] Neon
 * [[Image:Cscr-featured.svg|25px]] Argon
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|25px]] Krypton
 * [[Image:Cscr-featured.svg|25px]] Xenon
 * [[Image:Symbol unsupport vote.svg|25px]] Radon
 * [[Image:Cscr-featured.svg|25px]] Ununoctium

Zginder(talk) (Contrib) 13:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

History of polar exploration
Not sure if this is too broad a topic, but I noticed that we have a lot of featured articles on polar explorers and expeditions. I'm sure lots of good articles and featured pictures and maybe even some lists could be found as well. For now, I'm going to leave a list here, and let others decide where to take things from here. One question I have is where the line is drawn between a featured topic and a portal (featured or otherwise)? Is the difference between a topic and a portal simply one of broadness? I will leave notes on the talk page of the articles listed below, pointing them here. Please note that at least five of the eleven articles listed here are part of the group listed here. Also note that this is all Antarctic exploration except for S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897, which is Arctic exploration. If anyone takes this further (for example, by turning it into a candidate for featured topic), please note this here. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Saw this while I was here. It would be logical to consult Brian Boulton; I left him a note. Now that Featured topic instructions have been expanded, a repeat of the Everglades situation could be avoided.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you need to be aware of the cherry-picking rules, any topic trying to encompass all of Antarctic exploration is likely to fail for this reason. It'd be better to focus on some bit of it, for example one exploration (the main article, the individuals and the ships), or maybe the main articles of all of the explorations in the Heroic Age (which is probably the closest you can get to an overview topic here) - rst20xx (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Expeditions

 * S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897 (1897)
 * Discovery Expedition (1901–04)
 * Scottish National Antarctic Expedition (1902–04)
 * Nimrod Expedition (1907-09)
 * Terra Nova Expedition (1910–1913)
 * Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition (1914–17)
 * Ross Sea party (part of the Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition)

People

 * Robert Falcon Scott (Discovery Expedition and Terra Nova Expedition)
 * Ernest Shackleton (Discovery Expedition, Nimrod Expedition, Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition and Shackleton–Rowett Expedition)
 * Ernest Joyce (Discovery Expedition, Nimrod Expedition and Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition
 * William Speirs Bruce (Scottish National Antarctic Expedition)
 * Aeneas Mackintosh (Nimrod Expedition and Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition)
 * Harry McNish (Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition)

Other good polar exploration content
Haven't had time to find any yet, but maybe more could be listed here?

I'm going to look for some more polar exploration featured and good article content. I'm starting at Category:Antarctica articles by quality. I can't find a WikiProject for article on and about the Arctic (not even at Talk:Arctic), but Category:Exploration of the Arctic would be a good start for that kind of thing. Carcharoth (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Michigan State
Michigan state use to be a featured topic, I did not see what happened to make it drop off the list, if there is nothing wrong with it could we but it back up. if not that is OK, but if someone could let me know what they think that would be helpful ¶ Max ╦╩ (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It went through a second FTR in December, found at Featured topic removal candidates/2008 log. The consensus there was that 'Spartans was B-class (since gotten to GA, it looks like), and more importantly, the topic was cherry-picking the best articles, with no clear rationale why other high-level articles about the school were left out.  If you could come up with a hole-free definition of a topic about the school that has only GA+ articles, go ahead and nominate it, and it'll go back up. --PresN (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Potential Saint-Sylvestre coup d'état FTC
I was wondering if this could be a possible FT candidate. Mind you, I still have to bring three of the articles listed below to GA/FA status, so ignore the FA stars. Is the topic and its relevant articles appropriate?

Thanks. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say that it works- the article about the coup, and the 4 people that were heavily involved in it (on both sides). The only thing that could be missing is a template linking the articles together, but it's not absolutely required, as they're all linked to each other in text. Good luck! --PresN (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good, although I wouldn't be the one to say. While we're on the subject, ry this coup:

We could add Paul Gondjout, but I don't think that can go past DYK status (which it has already obtained). --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 02:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (Refering to Nishkid's proposal) I haven't checked completely thoroughly, but it seems there's no notable gaps, so yes, I think that would be a fine topic - rst20xx (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey
I was looking for potential FTs and I stumped upon this:

My question is wether this topic is comprehensive enough. Nergaal (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, they're not really connected. For example, your "main" article doesn't even link to one of the other two - rst20xx (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added the actors page with a seealso link. It's a complete topic. The actors list is for actors who basically won an Academy Award in a role by speaking a foreign language; some of these roles were for "foreign language films" (in the sense the Academy treats it, does not necessarily mean a film with a non-English language). If the scope was defined as "Academy Award-winning foreign language films and performances", then I suppose it would be a complete topic (all the foreign language films + all the times actors won a foreign language performance). That basically covers all the possible Academy Award situations for foreign language stuff. And yes, Nergaal, if consensus agrees to the topic, I'll let you co-nom it :p (big point here is that I want credit at WP:WBFTN for my fourth featured topic, but kudos to you for finding it). sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 02:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sweet! I did not know that there is a ranking even for this... now I understand Gary... Nergaal (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, when there's a list like that, and you took a couple articles to FA/FL/GA for a topic, then you want to get credit for it :p Gary is especially big on making topics, so if he does the necessary work to finish a topic, he wants the due credit for his work. sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 04:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, since I am the creator and main editor of two of the aforementioned lists, I also want credit for my work. I would like to be informed of the FT nomination before it starts. I don't know what's this thing about "co-nominators", but if the the rules of the FT process allow several editors to nominate a topic, then I surely hope to be included, if only for the dozens of hours of work I spent on these lists. Regards. BomBom (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Aren't there articles for the submissions from different countries and the yearly lists as well? Gary King ( talk ) 16:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Submissions yeas, but I think they are included in the second article. Nergaal (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What about nominated crew members? They are not covered anywhere in the topic, whilst nominated actors are. Thus, there is a gap - rst20xx (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you mean by crew members? For what awards? Nergaal (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I mean, everyone who isn't an actor, for every award that isn't "Best Foreign Language Film" - rst20xx (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what the "Other categories" section in List of Academy Award-winning films is for. sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 20:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Rst20xx probably means to say that there is no information about nominated crew members whose nomination did not result in a successful win. It's true that two of the lists above (the one about the Best Foreign Language Film Award and the one about the actors) include both winners and unsuccessful nominees, whereas the List of awards in other categories only includes winners. This can be considered a gap in the topic. Anyway, I have been working for months on my sandbox on a list of all foreign language nominated crew members. It's almost 75% finished, so there's no need for anyone to bother work on a new one. Once it's completed, I'll either merge it in an expanded List of Academy Award-winning foreign language films (in which case the title should be changed to reflect the fact that nominees are also included), or I will create a new list. BomBom (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds good. Once that is done, and now that the main article deals with the others sufficiently, I feel this would form a fine topic - rst20xx (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For BomBom: If it is already 75% ready, then you might want to consider putting it into an article and label it with underconstruction. That way others can drop in for some help, etc. Whenever you do create that article list it here or something like that. Nergaal (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Potential Featured Topic
Below is a proposal for a featured topic:

As I have never nominated a featured topic before, I would like to hear comments from other users before nominating. From what I have read on the featured topic criteria page, it seems to me that this proposed topic complies with all the mandatory and optional criteria. I have just created a corresponding template and category in order to fully comply with criteria 1c. Although I am not one of the major editors of these articles, I am knowledgeable enough about the British monarchy (or so I hope) in order to be able to respond to objections that may arise during the FT nomination process. The major contributors to the articles (DrKiernan, Masalai and Malleus Fatuorum) have all been informed of this featured topic proposal. Regards. BomBom (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I forgot to mention that the Edward VIII abdication crisis article is currently a featured article candidate (FAC). However, the featured topic criteria state that featured topic candidates "should only have Featured article candidates if the result does not affect whether the topic meets the featured topic criteria". Since the article in question already has GA status, the outcome of its FAC doesn't really matter, because even if it fails, the topic would still be compliant will all the FT criteria. Regards. BomBom (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * George VI of the United Kingdom might also have to be included. Duke of Windsor also. Nergaal (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The rules state that "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the articles of the topic should consult regular editors of the articles prior to nomination". Therefore, DrKiernan should bring this nom, though I see you have already consulted him, so that's good. Anyway, moving on, the question is primarily as to whether there are any notable gaps in the featured topic. I suspect that the various acts, such as His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936, constitute such a gap - rst20xx (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * DrKiernan, the major contributor behind these has noted at the top of the ongoing FAC, that Edward VIII of the United Kingdom, Wallis, Duchess of Windsor, George VI of the United Kingdom, George V of the United Kingdom is the set he is working to. I would respect his opinion as the major contributor. Woody (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Quatermass chronology
I noticed some articles in WP:FA that comprise of most of a topic:


 * Bernard Quatermass
 * The Quatermass Experiment
 * Quatermass II
 * Quatermass and the Pit

I've since brushed up and nominated the fourth and last in the series, Quatermass (TV serial), at Good Articles. Could these five make a featured topic, "Quatermass Chronology" with Bernard Quatermass as the main article? All the other Quatermass related articles are remakes of these four programmes (3 films and 1 TV remake) and so don't extend the chronology, and one radio documentary about the series. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 16:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The four films are fine together without the remakes, but I can't guarantee that you lead article would be accepted. Some reviewers may want to see a new article about the original series as the lead, but I don't think it would be necessary; the article on the character has a summery of that series, so it's good enough for me.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want to call it "Original Quartermass chronology" or something like that. By the way, both Nigel Kneale and Rudolph Cartier are featured articles - these could be included in the topic, too - rst20xx (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Cherry picking somewhat, though? I selected those five because they make a small topic. Including articles outside that scope would mean I delibrately wasn't including that radio documentary and the film remakes. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 20:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because if the scope of the topic is the original continuity, I feel that those two articles are still part of that - rst20xx (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, good point. I'll nominate the lot as "Original Quatermass Chronology" if/when Quatermass (TV serial) passes as a good article. Watch this space. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 15:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and finally, don't forget to consult Angmering before you bring any nom, and let him at least co-nom if he wants. After all, he did write the 6 featured articles - rst20xx (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. He'll turn up as and when. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 21:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I wouldn't say this is guaranteed to pass, some may think there are holes, but I think it has a good shot - rst20xx (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

preliminary look
I found these topics that I was going to startup but I've noticed that the nominator/promoter of all the GAs has retired:
 * Featured topic candidates/47 Ursae Majoris
 * Featured topic candidates/Upsilon Andromedae
 * Featured topic candidates/Gliese 876

Should I go ahead and nominate them? Nergaal (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ooh, I remember those, I created custom templates for them a year and a half ago, since removed. Yeah, if the primary contributor is gone, go ahead, you found them first. --PresN (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, this kind of question should be at Wikipedia talk:Featured topic questions - rst20xx (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

...and also, you shouldn't really create pages in the Featured topic candidates space until you are sure you are going to bring them to FTC. You could have created these pages in your userspace, and then moved them when the time came - rst20xx (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible Wii topic
How does this strike everyone for a potential topic: The intended definition is "The Wii and all physical media packaged with it". No game was packaged with the Wii in Japan, but all other territories had a copy of Wii Sports included. The Wii also comes with a Nunchuk and Sensor Bar, but those do not have separate articles. I'd rather see a generic "Wii" topic that includes the software features, but there are so many articles to include: Wii Menu, Wii Shop Channel, Mii, WiiWare, WiiConnect24, Wii System Software, etc. This was the best way I could think to limit the topic down to something manageable. If anyone has some alternative ideas for a medium-sized topic, I'd love to hear them.  Pagra shtak  14:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wii
 * Wii Remote
 * Wii Sports
 * Hmmm bit iffy about that, it doesn't seem like a strong enough scope to me. I'm not saying I'd definitely oppose, I can't decide, but I'm fairly sure others will oppose, sorry - rst20xx (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can't come up with a stronger definition without opening the article floodgates. Do you have any ideas for a topic closer to the 5–7 article range or so?  Pagra shtak  15:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * All the official Wii hardware? Would require a bit of work but seems like a natural topic to me. So we'd chuck the Sports and add Wii Balance Board, WiiSpeak, Nintendo Wi-Fi USB Connector, possibly Nintendo DS :P and I think that's it - rst20xx (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I forgot that the Wii Wheel and Wii Zapper don't have their own articles. That makes it a bit easier. I think I'd leave the DS out. So we've got Wii,  Wii Remote,  Wii Balance Board,  (probably go for audit) WiiSpeak, and  Nintendo Wi-Fi USB Connector. That is a lot of work.  Pagra  shtak  16:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WiiSpeak isn't out yet, so it'd count as an inherently unstable article - rst20xx (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, you could possibly do Wii launch, and then I guess that would include the 3 articles you listed initially, Wii launch (serving as the main), and finally you'd any software that was existent at launch - rst20xx (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That was closer to my initial though, but there are about twenty launch games. That's when I had the idea to restrict it to just the items that were packaged with the Wii itself.  Pagra shtak  19:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * On the games front, I think it would be permissible to only include Wii Sports. It's clearly more important here than the other games - rst20xx (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess was an important launch title as well, but I think it would be acceptable for a Wii launch topic to include what comes with the Wii. Wii launch,  Wii,  Wii Remote, and  Wii Sports sounds like it might be a viable topic.  Pagra  shtak  16:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm maybe, that might work (of course the software came with the Wii but you could argue that's covered by Wii. Not sure how that would go down). If you have any sales figures to say that The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess far outsold other games at launch you might be able to argue it's more notable than the others - rst20xx (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible GT & inherent bias
In January I asked on this page about the possibility of nominating the geography and history of Somerset as a featured topic. Since then many of the relevant articles have been promoted to FA or GA, and I've just heard about Good Topics & have come back again to look at the possibility of nomination under the new Good Topic criteria.

The relevant articles are now:
 * Somerset - which would be the lead article
 * Avon Gorge
 * Cheddar Gorge
 * Chew Valley
 * Exmoor
 * Geology of Somerset
 * History of Somerset
 * Quantock Hills
 * Somerset Levels
 * Mendip Hills

I looked at both Featured topics and Good topics for other geography based topics which I could use to decide whether Somerset met the criteria and found there aren't any! One of the recommendations in the criteria suggests "These guidelines do not apply to ..... those dictated by geography (for example, states of the USA)" but I'm beginning to wonder whether the criteria or procedures are biased in favour of topics with a finite number of articles (eg episodes in a TV series, gases in a particular series, hurricanes in a particular year etc). I would appreciate advice on how to get a topic through the procedures when there are massive numbers of articles which could be included (in the case of Somerset over 1000 could be considered relevant) but where the key or most important articles related to a topic have achieved FA/GA, without being accused of cherry picking those articles which meet the criteria. Any thoughts or advice appreciated.&mdash; Rod talk 18:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This question brings up "overview topics", which is something we've talked about legislating for better before (here) but no conclusions were reached, sorry. I think you're certainly right that it's easier to get some topics good/featured than others, but I don't think you're in as much of a nightmare situation as you think you are (EDIT: in fact I would go as far as to say that you already have a viable topic, but I'm going to give some general topic-building advice first - rst20xx (talk) 09:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)) - you can certainly break the topic down if you do it in a logical way. I'll try and give you advice as to how you can do this.


 * IMO there are two approaches to this, to attempt an overview topic, or to focus on some other subtopic. The overview topic would contain the likes of Somerset (main article), History of Somerset, Geology of Somerset, Economy of Somerset, Culture of Somerset, List of places in Somerset, List of civil parishes in Somerset and then maybe Flag of Somerset, List of visitor attractions in Somerset and List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Somerset.
 * Let's go through some subtopics. You could do several place breakdowns. Firstly you could do "Boroughs and Districts of Somerset". So that would be Somerset (or possibly List of places in Somerset, or maybe both should be included), and then everything in the top row of Template:Somerset.
 * You could also do similarly but for the cities, arguing that cities are more notable than elsewhere. So a "Cities of Somerset" topic would be Somerset (/List of places in Somerset) and then just Bath and Wells.
 * Or you could do all the cities and towns. Or you could focus on just one of the boroughs and do the cities and towns in that borough, with the borough itself as the subject/main article of the topic. This would form a subtopic of the second suggestion I made, should you choose to do both.
 * But I get the feeling that none of these suggestions are really what you want to do, I'm just showing that it's possible to break this thing down into manageable chunks, so long as the chunks are logical and produce no notable gaps at the level of detail to which they go. For example, if you included one village, then you'd have to include them all, but if you excluded all villages then this would be fine as you could name the topic "Towns and Cities of Somerset". Anyway, let's get to more the type of thing you want to see.
 * (Here comes the viable one - rst20xx (talk) 09:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)) "Geography of Somerset" first (I think doing Geography and History together is a mistake, it seems like a slightly arbitrary grouping to me). Right, what you could do here is argue that an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or National park or other type of protected area is more notable than another geographic area. And therefore, a Geography topic that contained all of these types of protected areas would contain Somerset, Geology of Somerset, Blackdown Hills (an AONB), Exmoor (a NP), Mendip Hills (an AONB), Quantock Hills (an AONB), plus finally Chew Valley Lake and Somerset Levels and Moors are the two Special Protection Areas of Somerset. Somerset Levels and Moors is a Ramsar Wetland of International Importance as well. And finally, you could cover the SSSIs by including List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Somerset (no need to include the individual Sites). So, if you did this, the only exclusion from your list above would then be History of Somerset. Therefore, IMO, you already HAVE a viable topic!
 * Right, "History of Somerset" to finish up with. I would think such a topic would focus on the History-related articles to do with Somerset, so obviously History of Somerset would be the main, and then you'd have the likes of Timeline of Somerset history, Durotriges, Dumnonia, Aquae Sulis, Roman Baths (Bath), some more recent stuff like Avon (county), and anything else that you think you can argue is especially notable to the history. I think this topic is less well-defined in terms of what should and shouldn't be included. You might want to break it up again, so for example do a subtopic on the Roman period first, and then you'd just have to include one of the Roman articles if you later did a general History topic. But whatever you decide, there would still be a lot of work to be done.
 * So, my advice to you would be to go for the "Geography of Somerset" topic I outlined, i.e. chuck out History of Somerset, add List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Somerset and then argue that the areas that are included are the most notable due to their various protected statuses - rst20xx (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments and the extensive amount of work you have obviously put into checking it out. I will have a think on it & probably go for the "Geography of Somerset" topic as you suggest. Any history would have to include the Monmouth Rebellion, Battle of Sedgemoor and Bloody Assizes and would involve a lot more work. As you have previously discussed I feel the barriers to doing an "overview topic" are major and may need further consideration in the criteria and procedures of the regulars at Featured/Good topics. Thanks again.&mdash; Rod talk 09:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I've just found List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Avon and that would also need inclusion. Also you might want to call it "Physical geography of Somerset" to stop anyone complaining about the lack of towns/cities. This is also the name of the appropriate section in the Somerset article - rst20xx (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was already planning to include that - see User:Rodw/Sandbox/GTnomination for preparatory work - however I'm waiting for Blackdown Hills which has been nominated for GA & we are currently responding to comments - before I submit the nomination.&mdash; Rod talk 07:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good stuff - rst20xx (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this page really necessary?
Can't these questions just be made at WT:FTC? The other featured process use the talk pages on their candidates pages, too, for general discussion on inclusion, notability, etc. and I think that is the best way to do it. A lot of people do not watch this page and therefore will not be notified if new questions arise, etc. Gary King ( talk ) 16:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I watch this page and so far I've found it useful to discuss the subject matter. The talk page over at FTC is for discussion about the process. Due to the recent introduction of Good Topics, it's probably useful to allow for various questions on its integration. I !vote we keep them separate. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 20:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm, maybe WT:FT? should be used for discussing the process instead? Gary King ( talk ) 20:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I definitely think this page is useful. Wikipedia talk:Featured topic criteria should be used for discussing policy. Wikipedia talk:Featured topic candidates should be used for requesting topics to be withdrawn/nominated, reporting problems or making other administration-type requests. Wikipedia talk:Featured topics should be used for discussing administrative changes, milestones and notifications.
 * Before this page was created, people would send questions about potential topics to Wikipedia talk:Featured topics, Wikipedia talk:Featured topic criteria and Wikipedia talk:Featured topic candidates. Also FTC would become clogged with questions about a particular topic's potential, with other discussions getting drowned out slightly - it almost became a trial run page for featured topics in the eyes of some editors which didn't seem appropriate. Nowadays this problem has been fixed - there aren't any at FTC, FT and FT?, they're all here instead.
 * And as for the watch page comment, well, I'm not even going to state what the answer is there :P rst20xx (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well from what I can see most of the replies on this page are from you :) Anyways, that's good enough for me as you're quite the expert around here :D Gary King ( talk ) 21:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Metroid Prime topic
I am working on a Metroid Prime topic. I am curious to know if you would Support it?


 * "Metroid Prime trilogy"

Gary King ( talk ) 20:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Metroid Prime Pinball and Metroid Prime Hunters are also Metroid Prime titles.  Pagra shtak  22:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What if renamed to "Metroid Prime Trilogy"? (Which was what I originally meant.) Gary King ( talk ) 22:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It would obviously be better if you could get all 6 articles in the topic, but I think that works for me. It's similar to the "Halo trilogy" topic - rst20xx (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose your biggest concern would be that the lead article covers the entire series and not specifically the Prime subseries. I think the exclusion of Pinball and Hunters is clear with the proper title.  Pagra shtak  14:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pagrashtak. Idealy the lead would be an article about the trilogy itself. It would be reasonably possible to write such an article, discussing the connections between the three games and how they differ from old Metroid games. Nevertheless, the topic is probably passable with this setup.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)